State of the Department: Statistics 11am Meet with New Faculty

State of the Department: Statistics 11am Meet with New Faculty

11:45 All Faculty: Educational objectives 12:30 Lunch w/ Faculty & Students (MSEC 367)

1:30 Student Session (MSEC 367) Faculty Discussion - Report Out

Wrap-up: Recs for 2008, Actions, and Ownership Adjourn

Fall 2007 ChE Advisory Board Mtg.February 1, 2008

Dr. Don WeinkaufPhD. - Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Texas at Austin

Dr. Bob BretzPhD - Biochemical EngineeringTexas A&M University

Dr. Corey LeclercPhD - Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Minnesota

Dr. Michaelann TartisPhD - Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of California - Davis

John MarshallBS - General EngineeringNew Mexico Tech

Dr. Tom BickelPhD. Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Texas at Austin

Dr. Doug DunstonMS Physics - Cal BerkeleyDMA - Music - Claremont

Dr. Mark CalPhD - Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Illinois

Dr. Robert LeePhD. Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Michigan

Dr. John McCoyPhD. Physical ChemistryUniversity of Pennsylvania

Dr. Junhang DongAssociate ProfessorUniversity of Cincinnati A

ctiv

e A

djun

ct a

nd P

art T

ime

Fac

ulty

Che

mic

al E

ngin

eeri

ng F

acul

ty &

Sta

ff

Engineering UG / FTE Ratios

0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

800.0

1000.0

1200.0

1400.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Total UG

All Others

ENGR

Enrollment Trends - Entering Freshmen

2000 - 254 Entering Freshmen2005 - 2792006 - 2822007 - 240

2000 - 72% NM Residents (74/26 M/F)2005 - 84% NM Residents (lottery effect?) (71/29 M/F)2006 - 83%2007 - 85%

2000 - 26 % Native American / Hispanic2005 - 26 % 2006 - 28.7% (w/ 26+% Hispanic) 2007 - 29.2 % ( w 27.9% Hispanic) - may soon qualify as Hispanic serving institution

2000 - 41% Top tenth of class (9% bottom half)2005 - 41% Top tenth of class (12% bottom half)2006 - 32% Top tenth (11% bottom half)2007 - 31% Top tenth (9 % bottom half)

Watch this in future

Average NMT ACT Composite Score

25

25.2

25.4

25.6

25.8

26

26.2

98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Avg. ACT (NMT)

Enrollment Trends

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Total ChE

F'98 5 Yr Plan

Freshman

Enrollment Trends

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

% of Tot. UG Enrollment

% of Tot. Fresh

Expect slight decline in graduates over next couple years

614

21

34

46

59

73

88

103

117

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

# of Graduates

accumulated alums

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Freshmen# of Graduates

Expect slight decline in graduates over next couple yearsMay be softened by transfers

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

BIOLCHEMCHEM ECSE&ESEEENVE - CIVMATEMATHMECHMINEPETRPHYSPSY

UG Enrollments

7

7

96

123.5

FTE

ChemE is in top echelon of enrollments but has a fraction of the faculty support

5

Campus UG / FTE Ratios

For the past 6 Years ChemE has operated with double the Tech Student to Faculty Ratio Average of 11:1

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

UG student/FTE

BIOL

CHEM

CHEM E

CS

E&ES

EE

ENVE - CIV

MATE

MATH

MECH

MINE

PETR

PHYS

PSY

MECH

ChE

CS

ENV-CIVBIOL

EE

PSY

PHYS

REST

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

BIOL

CHEM

CHEM E

Civil

CS

E&ES

EE

ENVE

Gen/Bas St

IT

MATE

MATH

MECH

MGT

MINE

MST

PETR

PHYS

PSY

TC

Trends in Freshmen Enrollment

Trends clearly indicate that ChemE will have roughly the same number of students as EE, Physics, and BIOL with less than half of the faculty support

7

7

9

6123.5

FTE

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

2005

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

UG Enrollment / FTE

Mechanical Chemical Electrical Envr/Civil Mineral Petroleum Materials

2005 Engineering UG / FTE Ratios

ABET: Institutional strengths of low student to faculty ratios not part of Chemical and Mechanical educational experience

2006


High Student to Faculty Ratios Still Not Addressed w/ New Faculty in Fall 2007

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

UG Enrollment / FTE


2007


No Engineering Faculty Searches Currently Open2 Electrical Positions Opened-Filled in Spring 2007

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

UG Enrollment / FTE


Major

Undergraduate Enrollment Fall 2003

Percentage of Total Undergraduate

Enrollment Computer Science 187 16.3

Electrical Engineering 183 15.9 Mechanical Engineering 133 11.5

Physics 101 8.8 Biology 96 8.4

Chemical Engineering 74 6.4 Chemistry 42 3.7

Materials Engineering 39 3.4 Undecided 34 3.0

Mathematics 30 2.6

Total UG Enrollment 1148 -

Major

Underg raduate Enro llment

Fa ll 2005 (0 6) [07]

Percentage of Tota l Underg raduate

Enro llment Mechan ica l Eng ineer ing 181 (1 81) [201] 15.3 ( 15.5) [17.7]

Compute r Sc ience 163 ( 149) [128] 13.8 ( 12.8) [11.3] Electr ica l Eng ineer ing 126 (1 22) [114] 10.6 ( 10.5) [10.0]

Biology 111 (1 08) [84] 9.4 (9. 3) [7.4] Phys ics 93 (9 3) [84] 7.9 (8. 0) [7.4]

Chemical Engineering 79 (7 9) [77] 6.7 (6. 8) [6.8]

Chemistry 40 (3 8) [35] 3.4 (3. 3) [3.1] Undec ided 40 3.3

Earth Sc ience 37 (4 4) 3.1 (3. 8) Mater ia ls Eng ineer ing 35 (4 4) [41] 3.0 (3. 8) [3.6]

Tot al UG Enrollment 1184 -

2005 ObservedTRENDS

Disparity of Faculty Resources

Only current searches CS and Physics w/ 2 EE slots filled in 2007

In 3 years (2008) EE and Physics Dept’swill be roughlythe same UG size asChemE, both have 2 to 3 times as thenumber of faculty than that in ChemE

In 3 years (2008) EE and Physics Dept’swill be roughlythe same UG size asChemE, both have 2 to 3 times as thenumber of faculty than that in ChemE

2005

Freshmen enrollment holds key to predicting future major size

TRENDS

2006

In 3 years (2008) EE and Physics Dept’swill be roughlythe same UG size asChemE, both have 2 to 3 times thenumber of faculty than that in ChemE


QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

TRENDS

2007

In 3 years (2008) EE and Physics Dept’swill be roughlythe same UG size asChemE, both have 2 to 3 times thenumber of faculty than that in ChemE


Distribution of Teaching (Credit Hours)

2004: 300-400 level credits increasing, grad in decline2004 Goal: Increase grad credit hrs to 90/yr by Fall 2006: Met Goal

06-07 Expected to have low grad credits

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

96-

97

97-

98

98-

99

99-

00

00-

01

01-

'02

02-

'03

03-

'04

04-

05'

05-

06

grad cr hrs

100-200

300-400

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

Formula Funding $ / Program Budget

96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-'02 02-'03 03-'04 04-05' 05-06

FTE/Budget Ratio

% grad credit funding

7 year avg: FTE/Budget = 142% in an UG non-service program!

% of Graduate Cycles with Maturation of Faculty

Budget and FTE Return

As of 2005-06, fringe benefits have been added to overall budgets. Thus 100% return is the true measure of FTE solvency.

?

Administrative Support Financial

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

99-00 00-01 01-'02 02-'03 03-'04 04-05' 05-06 06-07

Equip Inst (k$)

Lab Fees (k$)

2 new engineering programs w/ capital needs

77.768.9

150.3

212.9

251.6

170.0

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

Research Expenditures (k$/FTE)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

new faculty coming on lineFunding outlook looks solid

Research Expenditures per FTE

W/ 2.5 FTEW/ 3.5 FTE

HighBay136-236

No New Space Allocatedsince 20002.5 FTE in 20003.5 FTE in 2006

5 years: Most productiveEngineering ResearchProgram on Campus

Smallest Science & EngrSpace Allocation on Campus

No other UG facilities resideoff campus except ChemE

Need Space.

25175

21786

18912

14668

92828782

5785 5307 50204370 4369 4240

2945

1576

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

E&ES Phys

ChemistryMATR EngrBiology

ELEC Engr

ENVR/CIV Engr

MECH EngrPETR EngrCompSci IT

Math

MIN EngrCHEM Engr

Management

Total Space Allocated (ft2)

Data from Business Office Indirect Cost Analysis (2004)

Space resources also limit potential in ChemE

19811891

1834

1547

1413

1259 12551157

1098

965

841

624

397315

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Phys

ChemistryMATR Engr

BiologyMIN Engr

E&ES

PETR Engr

ENVR/CIV Engr

ELEC EngrMECH EngrCHEM EngrCompSci IT

Math

Management

Sq Ft/FTE

2004 Pre-Cramer Renovation

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

MATR Engr ELEC Engr ENVR/CIV Engr MECH Engr PETR Engr MIN Engr CHEM Engr

Sqaure Footage

2 year Avg Proposal $/sq ft of dept space

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

CompSci IT

E&ES

CHEM EngrManagement

BiologyMECH EngrChemistryELEC Engr

Phys

MATR Engr

ENVR/CIV Engr

Math

PETR EngrMIN Engr

Space resources also limit potential in ChemE

Summary for 2007

add FTE and consolidate labs.

Let’s make this happen.

Demonstrated Commitment to Goals of the Institute

Recommended Actions: Department for 2005

1. Carry Over: Carry out plan to increase “bodies” involved with Chemical Engineering students (FTE = 4.0) Owner Weinkauf/Gerity

2. Carry Over: Initiate “Real” Space and Utilization Dialogue with all Dept’s in building - Owner: Strategic Planning Committee (Weinkauf) / President

3. Reinvigorate Freshmen Recruiting Plan - Goal of 20 New ChE Fall 2005 - Owner: Jeon/Dong/Weinkauf (Met GOAL)

4. Continue to Develop Graduate Component of Work - Goal 90 Credit Hrs/Yr by Fall 2006 - Owner: ChE Faculty (Met GOAL)

5. Continue to Assess Program and Assessment Plan: Owner: Advisory Board/ChE Faculty (Met GOAL)

6. Increase quality of Chemical Engineering Lab Experience. Owners: Weinkauf/Dong/Jeon. (Met GOAL)

7. Carry Over: Develop 5 Year Plan. Owner: ChE Faculty Due January 2006.




3. Carry Over: Develop 5 Year Plan. Owner: ChE Faculty Due March 2007.

4. Understand the career goals and ensure satisfaction of our faculty: Owner: Weinkauf / VP Romero. (Did not MEET GOAL)

5. Reach out to elder alumni to become involved in the development and direction of the program. Owner: Weinkauf (Did not MEET GOAL)

6. Bring all faculty in line with expectations for excellence. Owner: Chair (MET GOAL).

7. Begin clearly addressing ABET concerns and corrected shortcomings. Owners: ChE Faculty. (curriculum, assessment yes…)




3. Carry Over: Develop 5 Year Plan. Owner: ChE Faculty Due March 2007.

4. Get new faculty & get new faculty up and running: Owner: Weinkauf / VP Romero.

5. Reach out to elder alumni and new companies in New Mexico to become involved in the development and direction of the program. Owner: Board

6. Adjust curriculum to respond to new faculty strengths and assessment tools. Owner: Chair.

Educational Objectives

Educational Objectives:

1. We will develop complete engineers who can: solve problems,

experiment, innovate, be resourceful, and champion ideas through effective communication.

2. We will engender an understanding of the broad reach of a modern

Chemical Engineering education and the array of knowledge required to implement solutions which will benefit our society.

3. We will provide a conduit to successful careers in the spectrum of fields

which benefit from a command of the principles of Chemical Engineering.

4. We will foster a life long love of learning, opening doors to graduate study and enabling graduates to adapt to changes and opportunities in the profession.

Recommended Actions: Educational Objectives for 20061. Adjust the curriculum to reinforce students exposure to Numerical Methods

in the Junior and Senior years. (Owner: Jeon) Not Met

2. Incorporate Design of Experiments into the Unit Operations Laboratory. Evaluate two lab senior year (Owners: Dong /Sharma) Met

3. Learn from other schools effective methods of teaching assessment and modes to improve teaching effectiveness (Owner: Weinkauf) Not Met

4. Provide a more complete examination of the low FE exam scores in key Chemical Engineering areas (Owner: ChE Faculty) Met

5. Conduct the scheduled 5-10 year review of alumni and gage success of

Educational Objective #4 (Owner: Weinkauf). Not Met

Educational Objectives Report:

1. Summarize FE exam results

2. Update placement statistics

3. Recent Graduate Survey Results

4. Alumni Survey Results (every 3 years)

5. Summarize: Outside review of design presentations

6. Summarize: General Degree Requirement Assessment (broad education)

2003-05 FE Exam ChemE ResultsComparison with Univ. of S. Alabama (required)

Historically Tech ChemE’s pass at 71% rateHistorically Univ. S. Alabama (6 yr. ABET accreditation) - 71%

2004 -2006 ChemE’s 71 % pass rate.

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

chemistycomputers

dynamics

elec. circuits

engr econ

ethics fluidsmat sci

math

mech of matr

statics thermo

NMT Overall 03-05

S. Ala (8 yr Avg)

Blue = NMTPeach = NMT + USAla

Total ChemE FE Results thru 2005Comparison with Univ. of S. Alabama (required)


ChemE’s Pass on morning results.-16.00

-14.00

-12.00

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00 num methodschem rxn kinchem thermoequip designheat transmat/energymass transprocesscontrol desgn/econeval pollution prevprocess safetytransportphenom

ChE Avg. Score - ChE National Avg.)

Total ChemE FE Results thru 2006Comparison with Univ. of S. Alabama (required)


40 examinees… clear trends emerging..-16.00

-14.00

-12.00

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

num methodschem rxn kinchem thermoequip designheat transmat/energymass transprocesscontrol desgn/econeval pollution prevprocess safetyfluids chemistry

ChE Avg. Score - ChE National Avg.)

Recommended Actions: Educational Objectives for 2008

1. Revise Reaction Kinetics Course with eye on poor performance in FE exams as well as look for opportunities to reinforce numerical methods. (Owner: Leclerc)

2. Complete evaluation of ChemE Laboratory sequence to reinforce transport concepts. Evaluate two lab senior year (Owners: All Faculty )

3. Learn from other schools effective methods of teaching assessment and modes to improve teaching effectiveness (Owner: Weinkauf) Carry Over

4. Conduct the scheduled 5-10 year review of alumni and gage success of Educational Objective #4 (Owner: Faculty and Staff).

5. Design and Implement ChE 110 - Intro course with assessment eyes on retention. (Owner: Tartis).

State of the Department: Statistics 11am Meet with New Faculty

Documents

Transcript of State of the Department: Statistics 11am Meet with New Faculty